1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against Plaintiff A with respect to KRW 48,300,308, and KRW 46,800,308 and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact-finding 1) Nonparty E driving a F taxi on December 6, 2013 at around 23:20 on December 6, 2013 (hereinafter “tax vehicle”).

(2) While the Defendant D is driving at a speed of 96 km per hour when he violated the speed of 60 km along one lane from the direction of the Ulsan East East Police Station in the direction of the Home Plercing Station in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, U.S., and the left-hand turn-hand at the speed of 96 km at the speed of the speed of 60 km in the direction of the Home Plercing Station, he is driving by Defendant D who violated the stop signal under the influence of alcohol at the same intersection.

2) The Plaintiff did not discover the Defendant’s wife and shocked as it was, and the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant

(3) The instant accident was caused by the shock of taxi vehicles by the front glass of the taxi vehicle, and the taxi driver died on the next day from the floor of the taxi with the external shocking light (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children, and the Plaintiff’s Federation of the Passenger Transport Business Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) concluded a mutual aid agreement that compensates for damages arising from an accident that occurred during the operation of taxi vehicles.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, Gap evidence No. 5, the whole purport of the pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Deceased and the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred due to the instant accident.

Defendant E’s association is not obliged to exercise occupational duty to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident in advance, while driving a taxi vehicle at the intersection in accordance with the new subparagraph, and to anticipate the violation of the instant Otoba signal and the left-hand turn at the front of the taxi vehicle on the adjacent road, and there is no occupational duty to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident. However, it cannot be deemed that there is a causal relationship between the above negligence and the occurrence of the instant accident. Thus, the Defendant association is liable for damages.